So, at the end, a man who had great power used it to build nothing, and, at the end he is calmly proud of the nothing that he made. Watching the narrative of a man who uniquely believes only facts that have never been facts, are good enough for him, is not a revelation, but it is fascinating to see it on film this way. It mostly lets Cheney speak for Cheney. It is also a little jarring to realize that the question of just who was running the country and who was actually making policy is left in some doubt. Bush seemed to end up with a large portfolio of polices, actions, and consequences about which he effectively knew nothing at all. And Cheney chats this up as a good thing. Honestly, if one were to create a picture of a sociopath, this portrait of Dick Cheney might beg some consideration.
6 Reviews
A Man of Principle.
rmax30482319 January 2015
Anyone expected a polemic against Vice President Cheney will be disappointed -- somewhat. Some mythomanes on the extreme will judge it as a leftist polemic but it's not a hatchet job. It's a rather straightforward look at a man of principle who may have been the most powerful Vice President in American history, including Woodrow Wilson's wife.
There are half a dozen or so talking heads and much documentary footage as we travel briefly through Cheney's early years and then through his eight years as Vice President. They divide themselves into two terms.
(Term 1.) Bush runs for the presidency in 2000 and asks Cheney to find a proper candidate for VP. Cheney subjects all possible candidate to a thorough and demanding vetting process and they all fail until only Cheney is left. I emphasize that one event because it provides a thumbnail pic of the rest of the first term.
Bush has little experience in foreign affairs, or in Washington for that matter, and Cheney is the proper guide. He's a very portrait of the seasoned policy maker who was sure of himself, never made a mistake in judgment, never backed down, didn't play a defensive role, genuinely believed that kicking ass worked -- and Bush was the apt pupil. When 9/11 took place, Bush was stuck in a primary school in the South. Cheney took over in Washington and more or less remained in charge for the next few years, feeding what information to Bush what he felt Bush might absorb. For some of the growing internal crises Bush was kept out of the loop entirely. The president was surprised to find that some of his own lawyers had threatened to resign over issues like "data mining" by the NSA or the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Cheney advocated.
(Term 2.) The tensions between Bush and Cheney increase as the wars in the Middle East turn more complicated than had been expected. Public criticism grew so intense that Bush finally asked his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to resign. Rumsfeld and Cheney had been close friends and colleagues for years. Cheney: "I'd have kept him on." Eventually, tiring of Cheney's dominance, Bush avoided seeing Cheney and wouldn't accept calls from him. When Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was convicted of lying to the FBI, Bush commuted his prison sentence. Cheney wanted a pardon but Bush felt that justice should be served. Cheney: "There was a lot of tension." As he fades from the president's grace, his place is taken by Condi Rice, who prefers diplomacy to bombs.
Bush comes across as amiable, naive, not too perceptive, but fundamentally a nice guy. Cheney, on the other hand, emerges as an exemplary authoritarian personality. He was a man of principle. The problem with having principles is that, as in Cheney's case, they may lead you to make mistakes -- grave mistakes -- in judgment. He doesn't admit to any mistakes. No authoritarian makes mistakes. I don't think he lied about the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I think it was worse -- he actually believed his own misperceptions. And he virtually convicts himself of being not just the most powerful VP in American history but one of the worst. "I'd do the same thing all over again," he tells the interviewer. A man of real principle never gives an inch. Washington is now full of men of principle.
There are half a dozen or so talking heads and much documentary footage as we travel briefly through Cheney's early years and then through his eight years as Vice President. They divide themselves into two terms.
(Term 1.) Bush runs for the presidency in 2000 and asks Cheney to find a proper candidate for VP. Cheney subjects all possible candidate to a thorough and demanding vetting process and they all fail until only Cheney is left. I emphasize that one event because it provides a thumbnail pic of the rest of the first term.
Bush has little experience in foreign affairs, or in Washington for that matter, and Cheney is the proper guide. He's a very portrait of the seasoned policy maker who was sure of himself, never made a mistake in judgment, never backed down, didn't play a defensive role, genuinely believed that kicking ass worked -- and Bush was the apt pupil. When 9/11 took place, Bush was stuck in a primary school in the South. Cheney took over in Washington and more or less remained in charge for the next few years, feeding what information to Bush what he felt Bush might absorb. For some of the growing internal crises Bush was kept out of the loop entirely. The president was surprised to find that some of his own lawyers had threatened to resign over issues like "data mining" by the NSA or the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Cheney advocated.
(Term 2.) The tensions between Bush and Cheney increase as the wars in the Middle East turn more complicated than had been expected. Public criticism grew so intense that Bush finally asked his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to resign. Rumsfeld and Cheney had been close friends and colleagues for years. Cheney: "I'd have kept him on." Eventually, tiring of Cheney's dominance, Bush avoided seeing Cheney and wouldn't accept calls from him. When Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was convicted of lying to the FBI, Bush commuted his prison sentence. Cheney wanted a pardon but Bush felt that justice should be served. Cheney: "There was a lot of tension." As he fades from the president's grace, his place is taken by Condi Rice, who prefers diplomacy to bombs.
Bush comes across as amiable, naive, not too perceptive, but fundamentally a nice guy. Cheney, on the other hand, emerges as an exemplary authoritarian personality. He was a man of principle. The problem with having principles is that, as in Cheney's case, they may lead you to make mistakes -- grave mistakes -- in judgment. He doesn't admit to any mistakes. No authoritarian makes mistakes. I don't think he lied about the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I think it was worse -- he actually believed his own misperceptions. And he virtually convicts himself of being not just the most powerful VP in American history but one of the worst. "I'd do the same thing all over again," he tells the interviewer. A man of real principle never gives an inch. Washington is now full of men of principle.
Full Of S**t.....
MovieHoliks23 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I got around to finishing up this really good documentary about former VP Dick Cheney off Showtime the other night. It goes into his early up- bringing, his days on the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford staffs, and ultimately his heading up the George W. Bush administration and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and war on terror.
As Cheney was interviewed throughout the film, he is unapologetic about all his disastrous decisions. But the thing that I found incredibly interesting about this doc. was how it implied that everything we were thinking about Cheney and Bush's professional relationship was actually true!?? It implied basically that Cheney was the ring-leader- he was hired by Bush, who was rather insecure, to be the man-in-charge, hire everybody else, and then sorta run the show..?? But after awhile, it seemed Bush was kept in the dark by Cheney and others on the staff, so things turned ugly. So this is a movie about Dick Cheney- from HIS perspective, but at the same time, he comes across as the villain, and GW Bush as the hero-??? WTF??! LOL
As Cheney was interviewed throughout the film, he is unapologetic about all his disastrous decisions. But the thing that I found incredibly interesting about this doc. was how it implied that everything we were thinking about Cheney and Bush's professional relationship was actually true!?? It implied basically that Cheney was the ring-leader- he was hired by Bush, who was rather insecure, to be the man-in-charge, hire everybody else, and then sorta run the show..?? But after awhile, it seemed Bush was kept in the dark by Cheney and others on the staff, so things turned ugly. So this is a movie about Dick Cheney- from HIS perspective, but at the same time, he comes across as the villain, and GW Bush as the hero-??? WTF??! LOL
Chilling portrait of the Man behind Curtain
Cinema_Lover17 March 2013
For 8 years in the 2000s we all joked that Dick Cheney was the real President of the United States and that George W. Bush was a mere puppet president. I still remember Bush coming out and reading speeches from cards to the press in his early months as President, which gave us a glimpse of how unprepared he was to be President. I even remember hearing the "President Cheney" joke in early 2001, months before the September 11th attacks. Many of us assumed that Dubya was likely just a mouth piece, but I don't think anyone in the general public realized just how deep Cheney's authority in the White House was. This documentary shows the world very clearly that Dick Cheney was indeed the real man "in charge" of basically everything that happened during the Bush Presidency. Or shall we say, the Cheney Presidency. George W. Bush only seemed to have a technical authority over Cheney, but Cheney was the one in charge. Cheney was running the show during 9/11 and Cheney was the one who pushed for the Iraq War. Bush Jr. was just a figurehead, a bumbling tragic fool who was way in over his head.
Never in United States history has there been a Vice President who wielded so much power and influence. Never in American history has there been a Vice President who pushed around his President the way Cheney did to Bush. It's humiliating to see how much control Vice President Cheney had over President George W. Bush, who probably was a good guy who unfortunately was manipulated by much more nefarious forces like Cheney and his neo-cons. President Bush 43 often hated how former President Jimmy Carter would openly criticize his policies. I have often thought there many similarities b/w Bush 43 and Carter, despite one being a Republican and one a Democrat. Both men seem smaller then the Office of the Presidency, the difference is that Bush 43 had cockiness to him that masked his ineptitude and ignorance, while Carter had a sharp mind but lacked an ability to make firm decisions.
I'll admit it was interesting seeing Cheney's early life and back-story, it gave the man a more human face. Like many politicians Cheney excelled at most things he attempted in life. He was a successful jock in high school, class president and his girlfriend was one of the more popular girls around. He was accepted into Yale where suddenly he turned into a beer guzzling slacker and eventually dropped out. Now Cheney's transformation from early 20s Yale dropout slacker to mid 30s White House Chief of Staff is nothing short of extraordinary and unprecedented. It is certainly something to be admired and should serve as an inspiration to everyone of all walks of life and ages. As a person he is an unquestioned success, but as a man of political office he is the face of power unchecked. Those that are in the pro-Cheney camp will likely love this video b/c the interviewer generally lobs softballs at Cheney and Cheney answers with his usual robotic monotone voice with no follow up or counter point offered. Imagine if a Democratic ticket had a figure head President while the Vice President was the real person in charge, calling all the shots and ordering the President around. The outcry from the right would be never ending, and Republicans would be hysterical with claims that a tyrannical liberal federal government is running the country into the ground.
History will likely go easy on George W. Bush, he can be written off as too dumb to know any better, but Dick Cheney will always be viewed as the murderous crook he is. Let us always remember that back in 2000 America elected an emperor who brought his own brand of terror to the world while pulling the strings on Dubya all the way. Cheney is hawkish and unapologetic for the Iraq invasion or the enhanced interrogation techniques used under what was basically his administration, which will likely please those who view his actions as a loyal patriot instead of a certified nutball.
Never in United States history has there been a Vice President who wielded so much power and influence. Never in American history has there been a Vice President who pushed around his President the way Cheney did to Bush. It's humiliating to see how much control Vice President Cheney had over President George W. Bush, who probably was a good guy who unfortunately was manipulated by much more nefarious forces like Cheney and his neo-cons. President Bush 43 often hated how former President Jimmy Carter would openly criticize his policies. I have often thought there many similarities b/w Bush 43 and Carter, despite one being a Republican and one a Democrat. Both men seem smaller then the Office of the Presidency, the difference is that Bush 43 had cockiness to him that masked his ineptitude and ignorance, while Carter had a sharp mind but lacked an ability to make firm decisions.
I'll admit it was interesting seeing Cheney's early life and back-story, it gave the man a more human face. Like many politicians Cheney excelled at most things he attempted in life. He was a successful jock in high school, class president and his girlfriend was one of the more popular girls around. He was accepted into Yale where suddenly he turned into a beer guzzling slacker and eventually dropped out. Now Cheney's transformation from early 20s Yale dropout slacker to mid 30s White House Chief of Staff is nothing short of extraordinary and unprecedented. It is certainly something to be admired and should serve as an inspiration to everyone of all walks of life and ages. As a person he is an unquestioned success, but as a man of political office he is the face of power unchecked. Those that are in the pro-Cheney camp will likely love this video b/c the interviewer generally lobs softballs at Cheney and Cheney answers with his usual robotic monotone voice with no follow up or counter point offered. Imagine if a Democratic ticket had a figure head President while the Vice President was the real person in charge, calling all the shots and ordering the President around. The outcry from the right would be never ending, and Republicans would be hysterical with claims that a tyrannical liberal federal government is running the country into the ground.
History will likely go easy on George W. Bush, he can be written off as too dumb to know any better, but Dick Cheney will always be viewed as the murderous crook he is. Let us always remember that back in 2000 America elected an emperor who brought his own brand of terror to the world while pulling the strings on Dubya all the way. Cheney is hawkish and unapologetic for the Iraq invasion or the enhanced interrogation techniques used under what was basically his administration, which will likely please those who view his actions as a loyal patriot instead of a certified nutball.
Whitewash
barnesgene16 March 2013
If you lived through this achingly awful time in our country's history, you will already be familiar with where the battle is joined on many of the issues presented in this film. Personally, I did not find one single thing that was new to me. It seems that, instead of choosing to do a thorough, in-depth analysis of the many things Dick Cheney did and said, the makers of this documentary chose to go the "College Freshman's Introduction to Dick Cheney" route: Keep it simple, keep it matter-of- fact, let the audience connect the dots (if they can), and by all means, don't ruffle any feathers. So many important details were left out, like the remarkable time Mr. Cheney averred that, if America voted for John Kerry for President, that would be a win for Al Qaida -- a completely irresponsible, hugely, gapingly un-American thing for any politician to say. And that's just one of many. And nowhere was the question ever posed, "Do you feel responsible for all those unnecessary deaths of American soldiers in Iraq?" To treat this man as anything other than a murderer gives him a modicum of dignity he doesn't deserve. The producer and director were clearly scared to death to get down to the real nitty-gritty. Don't misunderstand me: There's nothing terribly wrong with this film -- just a failure of nerve.
Surprisingly fair portrayal of our 46th Vice President
SaxAndViolins15 March 2013
First a little background, I consider myself a Republican, but am not hardcore in any sense. I voted for Romney, but also the re-election of the Democratic governor of my state. I don't agree with the extreme views of the Tea Party, but would prefer compromise. I suppose I'm more moderate than anything.
Coming into the movie, I was really hoping for a non-partisan analysis of Cheney. With FOX News and MSNBC, it's really hard to get a source that isn't slanted one way or the other. The way the story unravels (it seemed more like a novel than a history book) tells it in a very fair way: which is what I wanted.
The decisions that Mr. Cheney made over his tenure are worth exploring, as I'm sure he is a smart man and had rationales for his actions. The documentary doesn't go into that much detail, at least not to the degree I was looking for, but I walked away satisfied. If you are wanting a look at Dick Cheney, without the BS clouding the conversation, I wholeheartedly recommend this movie.
Coming into the movie, I was really hoping for a non-partisan analysis of Cheney. With FOX News and MSNBC, it's really hard to get a source that isn't slanted one way or the other. The way the story unravels (it seemed more like a novel than a history book) tells it in a very fair way: which is what I wanted.
The decisions that Mr. Cheney made over his tenure are worth exploring, as I'm sure he is a smart man and had rationales for his actions. The documentary doesn't go into that much detail, at least not to the degree I was looking for, but I walked away satisfied. If you are wanting a look at Dick Cheney, without the BS clouding the conversation, I wholeheartedly recommend this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
